key: cord-010813-94v8zchf authors: Deemer, Kirsten; Zjadewicz, Karolina; Fiest, Kirsten; Oviatt, Stephanie; Parsons, Michelle; Myhre, Brittany; Posadas-Calleja, Juan title: Effect of early cognitive interventions on delirium in critically ill patients: a systematic review date: 2020-04-24 journal: Can J Anaesth DOI: 10.1007/s12630-020-01670-z sha: doc_id: 10813 cord_uid: 94v8zchf PURPOSE: A systematic review of the literature was conducted to determine the effects of early cognitive interventions on delirium outcomes in critically ill patients. SOURCE: Search strategies were developed for MEDLINE, EMBASE, Joanna Briggs Institute, Cochrane, Scopus, and CINAHL databases. Eligible studies described the application of early cognitive interventions for delirium prevention or treatment within any intensive care setting. Study designs included randomized-controlled trials, quasi-experimental trials, and pre/post interventional trials. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias using Cochrane methodology. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Four hundred and four citations were found. Seven full-text articles were included in the final review. Six of the included studies had an overall serious, high, or critical risk of bias. After application of cognitive intervention protocols, a significant reduction in delirium incidence, duration, occurrence, and development was found in four studies. Feasibility of cognitive interventions was measured in three studies. Cognitive stimulation techniques were described in the majority of studies. CONCLUSION: The study of early cognitive interventions in critically ill patients was identified in a small number of studies with limited sample sizes. An overall high risk of bias and variability within protocols limit the utility of the findings for widespread practice implications. This review may help to promote future large, multi-centre trials studying the addition of cognitive interventions to current delirium prevention practices. The need for robust data is essential to support the implementation of early cognitive interventions protocols. Study designs included randomized-controlled trials, quasi-experimental trials, and pre/post interventional trials. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias using Cochrane methodology. Principal findings Four hundred and four citations were found. Seven full-text articles were included in the final review. Six of the included studies had an overall serious, high, or critical risk of bias. After application of cognitive intervention protocols, a significant reduction in delirium incidence, duration, occurrence, and development was found in four studies. Feasibility of cognitive interventions was measured in three studies. Cognitive stimulation techniques were described in the majority of studies. Conclusion The study of early cognitive interventions in critically ill patients was identified in a small number of studies with limited sample sizes. An overall high risk of bias and variability within protocols limit the utility of the findings for widespread practice implications. This review may help to promote future large, multi-centre trials studying the addition of cognitive interventions to current delirium prevention practices. The need for robust data is essential to support the implementation of early cognitive interventions protocols. Objectif Une revue systématique de la littérature a été réalisée afin de déterminer les effets des interventions cognitives précoces sur l'évolution du delirium chez les patients en état critique. Source Des stratégies de recherche ont été mises au point pour explorer les bases de données MEDLINE, EMBASE, Joanna Briggs Institute, Cochrane, Scopus et CINAHL. Les études éligibles devaient décrire l'application d'interventions cognitives précoces pour la prévention ou le traitement du delirium dans un contexte de soins intensifs. Les types d'études retenues incluaient des études randomisées contrô lées, des études quasi expérimentales et des études pré-/post-interventionnelles. En se fondant sur la méthodologie Cochrane, deux réviseurs ont extrait les données et évalué le risque de biais de manière indépendante. Constatations principales Quatre cent quatre citations ont été extraites. Sept articles ont été retenus pour le compte rendu final. Six des études incluses présentaient un risque global de biais majeur, élevé ou critique. Après l'application des protocoles d'interventions cognitives, quatre études ont noté une réduction significative de l'incidence, de la durée, de la survenue et de l'apparition de delirium. Trois études ont mesuré la faisabilité des interventions cognitives. La majorité des études décrivaient les techniques de stimulation cognitive. Conclusion Nous sommes parvenus à identifier quelques études ayant des tailles d'échantillon limitées décrivant des interventions cognitives précoces chez les patients en état critique. Un risque global élevé de biais et de variabilité au sein des protocoles limite toutefois l'utilité de ces observations pour leurs applications dans la pratique. Ce compte rendu pourrait susciter l'intérêt de chercheurs pour réaliser des études d'envergure et multicentriques examinant l'ajout d'interventions cognitives aux pratiques actuelles de prévention du delirium. Le besoin de données robustes est crucial pour soutenir la mise en oeuvre de protocoles précoces d'interventions cognitives. Keywords Cognitive interventions Á Delirium Á ICU delirium Á Ocupational therapist Á Delirium prevention Delirium is an acute neurologic disorder marked by inattention and a fluctuating course of altered level of consciousness that can occur as a result of medical illness, medical treatment (e.g., pharmacotherapy), and withdrawal of substances (e.g., alcohol). 1, 2 Delirium rates in the intensive care unit (ICU) vary widely (20-80%). 1, 3, 4 Intensive care unit delirium is associated with increased morbidity, mortality, healthcare costs, and a longer duration of mechanical ventilation. [1] [2] [3] [5] [6] [7] Prolonged delirium in the ICU is a risk factor for the development of post-intensive care syndrome characterized by new or worsened impairments in physical, cognitive, and mental health. [8] [9] [10] In addition, delirium is an independent predictor of cognitive impairment and is associated with poor functional and cognitive recovery following critical illness. 3, 6 Best practice guidelines place emphasis on detection and severity measurement of ICU delirium using validated tools such as the Confusion Method Assessment for the ICU (CAM-ICU) or the Intensive Care Delirium Scoring Checklist (ICDSC). 11 Such tools underpin research endeavors, and more importantly, the diagnosis and potential treatment of delirium. In general, pharmacologic management has not been proven to prevent or shorten the duration of delirium in critically ill patients; in fact, evidence shows certain medication classes should be avoided because of the risk of potentiating delirium (e.g., benzodiazepines, anticholinergics, tricyclic antidepressants, and first generation antihistamines). 11, 12 While antipsychotic medications have no proven efficacy, dexmedetomidine may decrease the duration of delirium when compared with placebo in mechanically ventilated patients with agitated delirium. 12, 13 Repeated standardized tasks specifically focusing on the cognitive domains. 16, 17 Maintenance or restoration of cognitive functions. 16, 20 Spaced information retrieval. 20 Tasks resembling activities of daily living. 17 Digit span, memory tasks, picture guess, difference searching. 36 Tailoring of task difficulty to the individual. 17 Individual or group settings. 17 Cognitive stimulation Engagement in range of group activities and discussions to enhance cognitive and social functioning. 16 Maintenance or restoration of cognitive functions. 16 Reality orientation. 16 Discussions within group environment including reminiscence therapy. 20 Recreational activities. 15 Memory training. 47 Cognitive rehabilitation Individualized approach to improve functional ability and autonomy. 17 Targeting everyday functioning to optimize residual cognitive abilities. 17, 18 Improve functioning in the everyday context. 16 Development and enhancement of new strategies to overcome cognitive obstacles such as use of memory aids (e.g., calendars or diaries). 18 Emerging evidence points towards the benefits of nonpharmacologic interventions for the prevention and management of delirium. 11, 14 Cognitive interventions are evidenced-based strategies targeting cognitive domains impacted by delirium such as orientation, memory, abstract thinking, and executive function. 15, 16 Traditionally used in Alzheimer's disease, dementia, stroke and traumatic brain injury, cognitive interventions encompass the clinically distinct concepts of cognitive training, cognitive stimulation, and cognitive rehabilitation (Table 1) . [17] [18] [19] Cognitive training involves guidance with standardized tasks that focus on specific domains (i.e., memory or executive function) and can occur in individualor group settings. 16 Cognitive stimulation improves general cognitive and social functioning by engaging patients in a range of group activities (i.e., reality orientation, word searches, or board games). [16] [17] [18] In practice, cognitive training and stimulation exercises may overlap, and include memory training using visual imagery and metacognitive training using self-awareness and selfregulation approaches to recover executive functioning. 17, 19, 20 Finally, cognitive rehabilitation is an individualized approach to improve functional ability and autonomy with a focus on optimizing residual cognitive abilities. 17, 18 The Cognitive Reserve Theoryinterventions targeting remaining cognitive reserve to stimulate activity-dependent neuroplasticity-underlies the use of cognitive interventions in elderly dementia patients with delirium. 21, 22 Similarly, cognitive interventions in critically ill patients with delirium, or those at risk of developing delirium, may stimulate neuronal plasticity thereby enhancing cognitive function. 15, 22 Recent clinical studies assessed various nonpharmacological interventions combined with physical rehabilitation for delirium prevention. [23] [24] [25] This systematic review will focus on the elements of early cognitive interventions and their effects on delirium outcomes such as incidence, duration, and severity in critically ill patients. Methodology for this review conformed to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines ( Figure 1 ). 26 The populations of interest were critically ill or intensive care patients. We defined the intervention as any therapies, strategies, or rehabilitation exercises directed at improving patient cognition or the domains of cognition. Examples of interventions included repeated tasks, games, skills, or questions such as orientation exercises in both writing and/ or verbal exercises. We sought to find studies comparing patients who received the intervention and those that did not, and reported on our primary outcome of interestdelirium. This review included original research articles such as randomized-controlled trials (RCT), quasiexperimental trials (i.e., non-RCT), observational trials, and pre/post intervention trials describing the application of cognitive interventions early in the ICU stay, as well as reporting on the burden (i.e., incidence, prevalence, severity) of delirium according to validated tools such as the CAM-ICU or ICDSC. 11 English language publications studying either pediatric or adult critically ill populations were chosen. Editorials, commentaries, review articles, case studies, non-interventional study designs, and grey literature were excluded. Non-English articles were excluded. Articles focusing only on cognitive interventions following hospital discharge (i.e., outpatients) were excluded as we sought to assess interventions applied early during critical illness. Search strategies were developed by K.D. and reviewed by a health sciences librarian. The search was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Joanna Briggs Institute, Cochrane, Scopus, and CINAHL databases. Medical subject heading (MeSH) terms and key words were used including three key concepts: cognitive interventions, delirium prevention, and critical care. Limitations included English language articles. There were no date restrictions. Search terms were detailed according to database MeSH terms (Appendix A). The initial search was conducted by the primary investigator (K.D.). Search results were managed using Endnote. Screening methods and data extraction Two reviewers (K.D. and J.P.) manually screened in duplicate titles and abstracts for predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Titles and abstracts lacking sufficient information for inclusion were reviewed in fulltext form. Disagreements were resolved by a third-party reviewer (K.Z.). Articles were chosen for full-text review after assessment of inclusion criteria for study population, study comparison, and study outcomes. Subsequently, two investigators (K.D. and J.P.) independently reviewed full-text articles for final data extraction and analysis. Interrater reliability was measured using Cohen's Kappa (j) where B 0 indicates no agreement and 1 indicates perfect agreement. 27 Data extraction Data extraction was conducted independently and in duplicate by two reviewers (K.D. and K.Z.) using a data extraction table that included study methodology, population, objectives, country of origin, specific cognitive interventions conducted, the healthcare professionals conducting interventions, outcomes measured (e.g., delirium incidence, severity and duration), study limitations, and key findings. Two authors (K.D. and K.Z.) independently assessed all RCTs using the Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias Tool as described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. 28 The following six domains were analyzed: random sequence generation; allocation concealment; blinding of participants; personnel and outcome assessors; how incomplete outcome data were addressed; selective outcome reporting; and other sources of bias (such as baseline imbalances). Each domain was judged as ''low'', ''high'', or ''unclear'' risk by a using a specific set of criteria outlined in the handbook. Conclusions regarding the overall risk of bias were derived from the individual domain judgements and the effect on the primary outcome. 28 Randomized-controlled trials judged to be at high risk of bias were deemed to have high risk for one or more key domain. Similarly, all three non-RCTs were independently assessed using the Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool by K.D. and K.Z. 29 The ROBINS-I is the preferred tool of the Cochrane Scientific Committee and uses seven domains to assess risk: bias due to confounding; bias in selection of participants into the study; bias in classification of interventions; bias due to deviations from intended interventions; bias due to missing data; bias in measurement of outcomes; and bias in selection of the reported result. 29 Individual domains are graded as ''low-'', ''moderate-'', ''serious-'' or ''critical-'' risk of bias or ''no information''. An overall risk of bias judgement (low, moderate, serious, or critical) is ascertained after each domain is addressed. Non-randomized-controlled trials with serious or critical risk of bias in a key domain were judged overall as having a serious or critical risk of bias. Disagreements in risk of bias results for both RCTs and non-RCTs were reviewed by a third author (S.O.) and final consensus was reached after discussion. Results are presented in both synthesized (Tables 2 and 3 ) and descriptive formats (Appendix B). A narrative format was chosen for the presentation of findings. A meta-analysis was not pursued because of heterogeneity of interventions, outcomes, and study designs. The search yielded 404 articles; 138 duplicate articles were eliminated leaving 266 for further consideration ( Figure 1 ). Of these, two hundred and thirty-three articles were removed after title and abstract review for failure to meet inclusion criteria (good agreement was met after title and abstract review; j = 0.68), leaving 33 publications. Following full-text review, 26 articles were excluded as they did not meet criteria for study design, article type, or lacked a study focus of cognitive interventions applied early during a period of critical illness (full agreement was met after full-text review; j = 1.0). Our literature search yielded seven articles for in-depth analysis (Table 4) . No articles were excluded from the final review and data extraction based on risk of bias judgement. All articles were published between 2014 and 2018, included patients over 16 yr of age, and were conducted in single-centre mixed medical/surgical ICUs. Four articles were RCTs, [30] [31] [32] [33] one was a pre-post intervention trial, 34 and two were multi-phase prospective observational studies. 35, 36 Three studies were conducted in the United States 31, 33, 34 ; with the remainder in Chile, 30 Australia, 32 Italy, 35 and the Netherlands. 36 Table 2 Risk of bias summary of randomized-controlled trials + = indicates a low risk of bias; -= indicates high risk of bias; ? = indicates unclear risk of bias. 30 Brummel et al. 31 Mitchell et al. 32 Munro et al. 33 Six of seven studies included in this review were deemed to have either a critical, serious, or high risk of bias. [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] Only one article was assessed as low risk in all domains (Tables 2 and 3 ). 30 We chose to include one study which had an overall critical risk of bias because it focused on the individual elements of cognitive interventions. 36 One RCT did not include enough information to determine if patient allocation was properly concealed or if there was blinding of personnel, participants, or outcome evaluators. Therefore, performance bias was possible and the overall judgement of bias was deemed unclear. 33 Of the studies that reported delirium outcomes, two were judged as having serious bias and one as having an unclear risk of bias (Tables 2 and 3 ). [33] [34] [35] Notably, moderate to serious bias was detected in all three non-RCTs within the domain of outcome measurements. [34] [35] [36] Two studies did not adequately describe a difference in personnel assessing outcomes and those delivering the intervention (Appendix B). 35, 36 Delirium outcomes Four of the seven studies reported results on delirium outcomes after cognitive interventions (Table 4) . 30, [33] [34] [35] There was wide variation in the types of outcomes reported (i.e., delirium incidence, duration, occurrence and development; delirium-free days; delirium severity; and time to develop delirium). Alverez et al. 30 conducted an RCT of 140 elderly ICU patients and reported a reduced delirium incidence (20% in the control group vs 3% in experimental group) after implementation of an occupational therapy led cognitive intervention protocol that included stimulation, rehabilitation, and training exercises (P = 0.001). Rivosecchi et al. 34 included cognitive stimulation in a non-pharmacological delirium prevention bundle, and reported a reduced incidence of delirium between phase I (15.7%) and phase II (9.4%) of the study (P = 0.04). Additionally, a reduction in delirium duration was reported by Alverez et al. 30 35 showed a significant reduction in the occurrence of delirium (36% phase I vs 22% in phase II) after introducing a cognitive simulation protocol that included orientation, environmental, acoustic, and visual interventions (P = 0.020). While controlling for dementia, APACHE II, and mechanical ventilation, Rivosecchi et al. 34 concluded patients were less likely to develop delirium after administration of a non-pharmacologic bundle that included music, exposure to daylight, Table 3 Risk of bias summary in non-randomized-controlled trials Colombo et al. 35 Rivosecchi et al. 34 Wassenaar et al. 36 Of patients experiencing delirium, exposure to reorientation protocol did not significantly change mortality. A reorientation strategy was associated with a reduced incidence of delirium. Mitchell et al. Delirium-free days. Mean delirium-free days: 1.9 in family voice group, 1.6 in unknown voice group, and 1.6 in the control group (P = 0.04). Patients exposed to recorded voice messages from family members had more deliriumfree days. It is feasible to provide cognitive training exercise to critically ill patients; patients found this to be a positive experience. 30 also measured delirium severity using a delirium rating scale and there was no significant difference in mean delirium scores (10 points in control group vs 9 points in experimental group, P = 0.7). There was no significant difference in the mean time until development of delirium as reported by Rivosecchi et al. between phase I (58.5 hr) and phase II (53.8 hr) (P = 0.7). 34 The remaining three studies, although underpowered to assess delirium outcomes, assessed the feasibility of interventions or estimated an appropriate sample size for future studies (Table 4) . 28, 29, 33 For example, Brummel et al. 31 showed that early cognitive therapy in critically ill patients is not only feasible but also safe and appropriate for both mechanically and non-mechanically ventilated patients (95% of patients received early cognitive therapy on at least one study day; 78% of possible cognitive therapy sessions were completed). Mitchell et al. 32 showed that a family-oriented cognitive intervention is feasible and acceptable but a low family recruitment rate was reported (28%). Finally, Wassenaar et al. 36 showed the feasibility of nursing-led cognitive training exercises that are practical and non-burdensome (nursing median Likert scale: 3.5-5.0; patient median Likert scale range: 3.3-5.0). Cognitive intervention protocols consisted of either training, stimulation, rehabilitation, or a combination of all three (Table 5) . Two studies utilized all three categories of cognitive interventions, which accounted for more varied protocols targeting several cognitive domains. 30, 31 The majority of studies (six) included cognitive stimulation (i.e., orientation activities and environmental stimulation). [32] [33] [34] [35] Cognitive training exercises were employed in three studies and included memory and visuospatial construction games and games targeting enhancement of attention. 30, 31, 36 Specific cognitive domains were targeted because of common impairments seen in delirium. These domains were identified in five studies and included orientation, memory, visual perception, problem solving, executive function, attention, and processing speed (Table 5) . 30, 31, 33, 34, 36 Two studies titrated their cognitive intervention protocol according to the level of sedation of the patient (as assessed by the Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale [RASS], Appendix C) 37 that permitted staged advancement of task difficulty. 31, 36 Neither study mentioned cognitive interventions that were attempted in patients showing the deepest levels of sedation (i.e., RASS -3 to -5). Healthcare professionals (physicians, occupational therapists, nurses) were involved in delivering cognitive interventions in a majority of studies (Table 5) . [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] Nevertheless, Mitchell et al. 32 studied interventions conducted by family members in the form of orientation, cognitive, and sensory stimulation. The participation of family in cognitive interventions was considered in three studies and included direct patient interactions such as participating in activities of daily living, voice-recorded messages, and orientation exercises (Table 5) . 30, 32, 33 Discussion Impact of cognitive intervention on delirium outcomes We found insufficient evidence to support the use of early cognitive interventions in the prevention or management of delirium in critically ill patients. Only seven small studies were identified examining early cognitive interventions in critically ill patients. Four articles variably reported a reduction in delirium incidence, duration, occurrence, severity, and an increase in delirium-free days. 30, [33] [34] [35] The remaining three studies only considered the feasibility of implementing a prevention program and did not report on delirium outcomes. 31, 32, 36 Furthermore, six of seven studies identified in our review had a serious, high, or critical risk of bias, which impacts conclusions on delirium outcomes. The implementation of cognitive interventions in critically ill patients is relatively new; there were no publications prior to 2014 that met our inclusion criteria. Delirium can have serious negative consequences in ICU patients, and as of yet there are no specific interventions-pharmacologic or non-pharmacologicthat reliably prevent its development. 38, 39 Nevertheless, there is an emerging body of evidence that suggests the utility of multimodal delirium prevention programs that includes the incorporation of a non-pharmacologic, multidisciplinary team approach. 14, 23, 24, 40 For example, early rehabilitation reduces the number of patients who develop delirium and shortens duration of delirium when it manifests. 23, 24 Incorporating early rehabilitation using a multimodal, multidisciplinary approach improves the management of delirium. 11, 40, 41 The ''ABCDEF'' bundle consists of Assessment, prevention and management of pain; Both spontaneous awakening and Breathing trials; Choice of sedation/analgesia; Delirium monitoring and management; Early mobility; and Family engagement and empowerment. 40 Higher bundle compliance is associated with improved survival and more delirium-free days. 40 Specific interventions such as minimizing restraint use, reducing noise, increasing daylight exposure, and promoting orientation and sleep are non-pharmacologic options for delirium prevention as part of a multimodal bundle. 12 The application of individual components of delirium prevention bundles in critically ill patients (specifically early physical and occupational therapy with a focus on functional mobility and activities of daily living) have shortened the duration of delirium. 23 Notably, it has been deemed safe and feasible to conduct physiotherapy even on patients receiving advanced life support treatments such as extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. 42 Nevertheless, studies of other non-pharmacologic therapies such as early cognitive interventions are lacking. Among the studies we identified, there was wide variation in the specific components of cognitive intervention protocols, which limits generalizability of their findings and comparison of their effects. Only two articles contained protocols that included cognitive stimulation, training and rehabilitation strategies based on the rationale that several cognitive domains are affected by delirium and should be targeted for therapy. 30, 31 This review found a limited number of studies with small sample sizes and overall high risk of bias. Therefore, it is not reasonable to draw conclusions regarding the specific type, dose, or component of cognitive interventions or if they would be efficacious in delirium prevention and management. This is especially true given the heterogeneity of populations reported across studies. Further study is necessary to test a standardized cognitive intervention protocol that may encompass cognitive stimulation, cognitive training, and cognitive rehabilitation exercises. Additionally, appreciation of the patient's baseline cognitive and premorbid status is necessary to tailor cognitive interventions appropriately in diverse critically ill populations. Two studies discussed titration of cognitive interventions according to a standardized agitationsedation scale. 31, 36 Nevertheless, neither study mentions cognitive interventions at the deepest levels of sedation. Not uncommonly, ICU patients require various medications for sedation and analgesia, and it is not clear whether cognitive interventions at various levels of sedation can be of benefit with regard to delirium outcomes. 11 In a systematic review of adult critical care survivors diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, post-traumatic responses were strongly linked to the development of delusional memories, which are more likely to develop in patients who are deeply sedated. 43, 44 Future research may reveal whether delusional memories can be ameliorated using cognitive interventions, and whether these interventions should be considered at all levels of sedation. A variety of healthcare professionals were identified in the delivery of cognitive interventions in the majority of studies; however, direct family involvement with cognitive interventions was considered in three studies. 30, 32, 33 Such involvement dovetails nicely with changing attitudes regarding family participation in patients treated in a critical care setting. Our review indicates that family participation in delirium prevention strategies can complement those performed by nurses and other healthcare professionals. 45 Family member participation may be particularly beneficial because of the personalized nature of cognitive stimulation, knowledge of the patient, and familiarity of voice. 32, 46 Additionally, family members may personally benefit from being able to directly participate in patient care and so gain a sense of purpose and control. Family involvement in the care of critically ill patients is an underutilized resource that certainly merits further consideration and study. While one identified study deemed cognitive interactions feasible and nonburdensome to nursing, 36 future methodologically-robust research may determine if these interventions are indeed feasible for a variety of patient populations, sedation levels, nursing workloads, and severity of illnesses. Assessment of the combination of input from healthcare providers and family members is essential before providing recommendations that could be tailored to resources available within individual ICUs. Feasibility studies included in this review may assist with protocol development of future RCTs, such as the study by Mitchell et al. 32 who provided a sample size estimate of 596 (80% power; P = 0.05). Additional studies are needed to elucidate the value of a standardized, multimodal cognitive intervention protocol combined with pharmacologic delirium prevention measures to determine the effect on delirium in critically ill patients. This systematic review has several limitations. The studies included in this review were deemed to have critical, serious, or high risk of bias, limiting overarching conclusions on the effects of cognitive interventions. Additionally, the majority of articles were pilot or feasibility studies; therefore, it would be premature to form conclusions on delirium outcomes. Cross study conclusions regarding cognitive interventions were not possible because of the large variation in populations of critically ill patients included in the studies (e.g., ventilation status, ages, and severity of illness). There was considerable variation in the types of cognitive interventions used; therefore, it is not possible to compare these and recommend any single intervention or protocol. This review studied only English articles so there may be additional evidence available that we did not include. Finally, our review may be further limited by the databases we interrogated; while we searched six major databases, additional relevant studies may be available from sources not indexed in these chosen databases. Early cognitive intervention for delirium prevention and management is a relatively new focus of research and insufficient evidence is available supporting its use critically ill patients. Larger, multi-centre trials that study standardized cognitive intervention protocols are needed to examine the effects on delirium outcomes in a range of ICU populations, levels of sedation, and healthcare professionals. It is anticipated that a considerable level of resources, training, and support would be required to implement additional non-pharmacologic interventions into current delirium prevention bundles. Author contributions Brittany Myhre, Michelle Parsons, Stephanie Oviatt, Kirsten Deemer, and Juan Posadas contributed to all aspects of this manuscript, including study conception and design; acquisition, analysis, and interpretation of data; and drafting the article. Kirsten Fiest contributed to the conception and design of the study in addition to editing. Karolina Zjadewicz contributed to the analysis of data and contributed to the conception and design of the study. Funding statement :None. Editorial responsibility iThis submission was handled by Dr. Steven Backman, Associate Editor, Canadian Journal of Anesthesia. Appendix A Search strategy for effect of early cognitive interventions on delirium in critically ill patients Pre-specified primary and secondary outcomes reported in pre-specified way. Free of other bias Low The study appears to be free of other sources of bias. High High risk of bias in one or more key domain. Mitchell et al. 34 Adequate random sequence generation Low Random component in the sequence generation process described. Allocation concealment Unclear Insufficient information to determine if patient allocation was concealed from participants and investigators. Blinding of participants High Family members filled out their own data slips to track whether intervention was conducted or not. High Not possible to blind outcome assessors. Unclear Authors did not adequately address how data set was completed when only 28% of data slips were completed by family members. Low Pre-specified primary and secondary outcomes reported in pre-specified way. Free of other bias High Low family compliance in data slip completion; skewed detection of intervention. High High risk of bias in one or more key domain. Munro et al. 35 Adequate random sequence generation Low Random component in the sequence generation process described. Allocation concealment Unclear Insufficient information to determine if patient allocation was concealed from participants and investigators. Unclear Insufficient information on who delivered interventions or if personnel were blinded. Unclear Insufficient information on the blinding of outcome assessors. Incomplete outcome data addressed No missing outcome data. Free of selective outcome reporting Low A priori determined primary and secondary outcomes appropriately reported. The study appears to be free of other sources of bias. Unclear Unclear risk of bias in one or more key domain. Colombo et al. 37 Confounding Moderate All known important confounding domains appropriately measured and controlled for; serious residual confounding not expected. All eligible participants for the trial were included. Low Intervention status well-defined and intervention definition is based solely on information collected at the time of intervention. Deviation from intended intervention Low Any deviations from intended intervention reflected usual practice. No flow chart. Insufficient information regarding potential for missing data. Nursing provided both the interventions and the outcome measures. Moderate Congruence between outcome measures and analyses specified in protocol but cannot be compared with a well conducted randomized control trial. Serious Serious risk of bias in at least one key domain. Rivosecchi et al. 36 Confounding Serious Lack of control for delirium-inducing medication use. Patient exposure was higher in phase II of study and was not considered in regression analysis. Selection of participants Serious 15% and 23% of patients were unable to be assessed upon admission into phase 1 and 2, respectively, because of illness severity. They may have been at higher risk for delirium. Low Intervention status well-defined; intervention definition based solely on information collected at the time of intervention. Deviation from intended intervention Low Any deviations from intended intervention reflected usual practice. Missing data Low Data were reasonably complete. The outcome was assessed by assessors aware of the intervention received by study participants because of the study type (i.e., pre/post intervention trial). Reported results corresponded to intended outcomes, analysis, and sub-cohorts. Overall judgement Serious Serious risk of bias in at least one key domain. Wassenaar et al. 38 Confounding Serious Enrollment of patients if the RASS was -2 to ?1 and stable. Intervention feasibility not tested in sicker patients so questionable generalizability of findings. Sampling of enrolled patients to test the intervention was based on the presence and absence of delirium diagnosis. Low Intervention status well-defined and intervention definition is based solely on information collected at the time of intervention. Low No apparent deviations. Any deviations from intended intervention reflected usual practice. Missing data Low Data were reasonably complete. Authors do not distinguish that patient burdensome ratings (using a Likert scale) were conducted by a separate outcome assessor than those performing the cognitive intervention. Reported results corresponded to intended outcomes, analysis, and sub-cohorts. Overall judgement Critical Critical risk of bias in at least one key domain. Light sedation Briefly awakens with eye contact to verbal stimuli (\10 sec) -2 Moderate sedation Movement or eye opening to verbal stimuli but no eye contact -3 Deep sedation No response to voice, but movement or eye opening in response to physical stimulation v4 Unarousable No response to voice or to physical stimulation -5 Delirium in critically ill patients Delirium in the intensive care unit Delirium in the intensive care unit and long-term cognitive and psychosocial functioning: literature review Prevalence and risk factors for development of delirium in surgical and trauma intensive care unit patients Delirium as a predictor of mortality in mechanically ventilated patients in the intensive care unit Outcome of delirium in critically ill patients: systematic review and meta-analysis Delirium duration and mortality in lightly sedated, mechanically ventilated intensive care patients Delirium as a predictor of long-term cognitive impairment in survivors of critical illness Delirium in the intensive care unit Implementation of the pain, agitation, and delirium clinical practice guidelines and promoting patient mobility to prevent post-intensive care syndrome Clinical practice guidelines for the prevention and management of pain, agitation/sedation, delirium, immobility, and sleep disruption in adult patients in the ICU Delirium management in the ICU Effect of dexmedetomidine added to standard care on ventilator-free time in patients with agitated delirium: a randomized clinical trial Clinical practice guidelines for the management of pain, agitation, and delirium in adult patients in the intensive care unit Practical protocol for implementing cognitive stimulation in persons with delirium superimposed on dementia Cognitive training and cognitive rehabilitation for people with early-stage Alzheimer's disease: a review Cognitive training and cognitive rehabilitation for persons with mild to moderate dementia of the Alzheimer's or vascular type: a review Efficacy of cognitive rehabilitation in Alzheimer disease: a 1-year follow-up study Evidence-based cognitive rehabilitation: updated review of the literature from Occupational therapists use of cognitive interventions for clients with Alzheimer's disease A framework for cognitive interventions targeting everyday memory performance and memory selfefficacy An intervention for delirium superimposed on dementia based on cognitive reserve theory Early physical and occupational therapy in mechanically ventilated, critically ill patients: a randomised controlled trial Early physical medicine and rehabilitation for patients with acute respiratory failure: a quality improvement project The effect of a multicomponent multidisciplinary bundle of interventions on sleep and delirium in medical and surgical intensive care patients The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions Occupational therapy for delirium management in elderly patients without mechanical ventilation in an intensive care unit: a pilot randomized clinical trial Feasibility and safety of early combined cognitive and physical therapy for critically ill medical and surgical patients: the Activity and Cognitive Therapy in ICU (ACT-ICU) trial A family intervention to reduce delirium in hospitalised ICU patients: a feasibility randomised controlled trial Delirium prevention in critically ill adults through an automated reorientation intervention -a pilot randomized controlled trial The implementation of a nonpharmacologic protocol to prevent intensive care delirium A reorientation strategy for reducing delirium in the critically ill. Results of an interventional study Feasibility of cognitive training in critically ill patients: a pilot study The Richmond agitation-sedation scale: validity and reliability in adult intensive care unit patients Pharmacologic management of delirium in the ICU: a review of the literature Pharmacological interventions for the treatment of delirium in critically ill adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev Improving hospital survival and reducing brain dysfunction at seven California community hospitals: implementing PAD guidelines via the ABCDEF bundle in 6,064 patients Effectiveness and safety of the awakening and breathing coordination, delirium monitoring/management, and early exercise/mobility (ABCDE) bundle Safety and feasibility of early physical therapy for patients on extracorporeal membrane oxygenator: University of Maryland Medical Center experience Literature review of post-traumatic stress disorder in the critical care population Patients' perceptions of and emotional outcome after intensive care: results from a multicentre study Perceptions of family members, nurses, and physicians on involving patients' families in delirium prevention The ABCDEF bundle in critical care Comparison of cognitive intervention strategies for older adults with mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease: a Bayesian meta-analytic review Acknowledgements We would like to acknowledge Helen Lee Robertson, MLIS, Liaison Librarian, Clinical Medicine Health Sciences Library, University of Calgary for her guidance in our search strategies.